Future Solid Support Ship

[ArmChairCivvy]

Turns out Forts Victoria and George would have been fine all along. Just makes the decision to scrap Fort George even more of a incompetent miscalculation

So the story about ship-internal cargo handling being impossible to upgrade for HRAS was made up?

another way to transfer F35 engines at sea has been devised

by buying more; they come as complete kits, for loading... AT LEAST you can stack them in the hangar

[ArmChairCivvy]

the hanger is single Merlin only.

They can borrow from the Verity design: full size Merlin hangar, and the crane arm above the doors (when the crane is not in use)

[ArmChairCivvy]

StRN says "RFA Fort Victoria may have to soldier on as a ‘single point of failure’ for CEPP, possibly requiring another expensive refit to extend her out of service date beyond the current 2024 plan"
but after the latest refit 2028 was floated
... that would be one for one replacement within this "plan".

Then the other two would come in whenever, to fit in with the stretched finances "Simplification of the design may make a third vessel affordable".

[Poiuytrewq]

So the story about ship-internal cargo handling being impossible to upgrade for HRAS was made up?

It's too early to say, just one source at the moment, albeit a very good and normally reliable one.

Maybe the ambition has changed.

by buying more; they come as complete kits, for loading... AT LEAST you can stack them in the hangar

That's OK for low intensity Ops and exercises but what about a real conflict that is sustained?

What are the other options for transferring F35 engines at sea?

[Poiuytrewq]

They can borrow from the Verity design: full size Merlin hangar, and the crane arm above the doors (when the crane is not in use)

Or the full Karel Doorman?

15270909962_cc79c14469_b.jpg

Is the aviation capacity increasing because the HRAS is being dropped?

[Scimitar54]

Osprey for transferring F35 engines at sea?

[SW1]

I wonder if expectations are finally meeting realities.

I suspect you will likely be able to count the number of spare engines in the entire force on the fingers of one hand and they’re will be plenty of space in the carrier to carry as many as you wish.

[shark bait]

I wonder if expectations are finally meeting realities.

Sounds like it, and nothing in that article sounds unreasonable. The F35 wont carry any massive weapons, in the rare event they a full engine delivering they can sling it under a helicopter, meaning HRAS is not strictly needed. Guess it all means a little larger break from flight ops, which sounds reasonable if it actually gets the things built, even better if some of the 'sea base' features get incorporated.

Or the full Karel Doorman?

Yes please!

[Poiuytrewq]

I wonder if expectations are finally meeting realities.

Are you suggesting that HRAS was gold plating

I would like to know how much money will actually be saved by deleting HRAS, especially if BMT have to go back to the drawing board with the whole concept.

[Defiance]

I suspect you will likely be able to count the number of spare engines in the entire force on the fingers of one hand and they’re will be plenty of space in the carrier to carry as many as you wish.

Very much this. Lots of fighter acquisitions these days usually include as many engines needed for the amount of aircraft bought plus only 2-4 spares

[Aethulwulf]

The requirement for HARS and the associated ship handling system for FSS was always based around the requirement for a 5 hour RAS window to restock the carrier with stores to last 5 days based on high intensity operations with 36 F35s on board.

Clearly, this has proved to be too expensive and was why the procurement was stopped. As I understand it, the HARS rigs themselves are not the issue. It is the 5 - 6 ton load movement equipment / capabilities within the ship and associated load bearing requirements that really add the expense. Not that any of that is impossible, its just new and would need new standards and new certification, etc. Remember, in military procurement new = greater project risk = greater project expense.

So, it would appear that the requirement to restock the carrier based on high intensity use of 36 F35s has been relaxed, to save money. Hard to argue against given the likelihood of 36 jets being on board.

[dmereifield]

Seems like a shame, but how often are we likely to need to transfer an F35B engine out to one whilst they're at sea? We're never going to have 40+ aircraft onboard so there'll be plenty of space for spare engines, won't there?

[ArmChairCivvy]

a 5 hour RAS window to restock the carrier with stores to last 5 days based on high intensity operations with 36 F35s on board.

Yep, I think they calculated that what was carried would last max. for 7 days... so a little bit of tolerance built into the original rqrmnt

Now , with the change, we are all agreeing... even though we do not have the slightest idea of what the corresponding parameters will be

[Ron5]

Hard to argue against given the likelihood of 36 jets being on board.

But surely when you need the extra RAS speed is when the likelihood is the greatest i.e. when the poop gets airborne.

But if it means three FSS can be afforded, not two, maybe what is lost on the swings gets recovered on the traffic circles.

[Ron5]

in the rare event they a full engine delivering they can sling it under a helicopter

Curious, can a Merlin lift that engine?

[Tempest414]

Or the full Karel Doorman?

now we could go for six Karel Doorman class 3 set up for Carrier support and 3 for LRG support replacing Fort Vic , 3 x Bay , 2 x Wave and Argus leaving the RFA with 4 Tide Tankers and 6 Support ships

[Tempest414]

in the rare event they a full engine delivering they can sling it under a helicopter

Curious, can a Merlin lift that engine?

Merlin can lift about 5 tons

[Ron5]

Is this the Bae design? Anybody know?

[Jake1992]

Is this the Bae design? Anybody know?

Always loved the look of this design

Iv also always thought it’d be a good bases for the future LPD LSD replacements

[Poiuytrewq]

now we could go for six Karel Doorman class 3 set up for Carrier support and 3 for LRG support replacing Fort Vic , 3 x Bay , 2 x Wave and Argus leaving the RFA with 4 Tide Tankers and 6 Support ships

The introduction of the Karel Doorman hasn't been without some issues but I think the biggest problem was that the design was just trying to do too much. The final overall cost of the programme proved to be a bit steep which also hasn't helped. Regardless, a class of improved and updated Enforcer variants is a very tempting prospect but any FSS based on an Enforcer design would be far from optimised. As Jake1992 suggests, the original FSS concepts that Ron posted seem like the logical place to start.

A Babcock/Cammell Laird/Damen partnership would seem to tick a lot of boxes and possibly open the door for the Amphibious replacements going forward. It's a pretty generous budget so if managed properly the results of the FSS programme could be truly impressive.

[Aethulwulf]

A few crude calculations...

Original requirement was to be able RAS 5 ton loads at 25 loads per hour (per rig), over 5 hours to provide 36 F35s with stores for 5 days.

= 5 x 25 x 2 x 5 = 1250 tons

But what if we assume 24 F35s are provided with 3 days worth of stores...

1250 x 24/36 x 3/5 = 500 tons

Again assume a 5 hour RAS, using 2 rigs at a 25 load per hour rate, that means each load now needs to be just 2 tons to meet the new 500 ton target.

[ArmChairCivvy]

each load now needs to be just 2 tons to meet the new 500 ton target.

The old target rate would have emptied even a big ship pretty fast, and we don't know for how long we will need to soldier on with just one in service
... that one then steaming away for resupplies - heaven knows from how far away - and back again . Suspend/ throttle down ops while you are waiting? All call the USN

[Aethulwulf]

Beware, as I said, those were crude calculations.

Clearly not every load that is RAS'ed will be at the maximum 5 t or 2 t limit. Many will be below the weight limit, but limited by their bulk instead.

[ArmChairCivvy]

those were crude calculations.

Do we even know what the targeted size for the ships is?
- the reason I copy-pasted the 2018 total supplies volume 'spec' in the RFP

[Poiuytrewq]

A few crude calculations...

Original requirement was to be able RAS 5 ton loads at 25 loads per hour (per rig), over 5 hours to provide 36 F35s with stores for 5 days.

= 5 x 25 x 2 x 5 = 1250 tons

But what if we assume 24 F35s are provided with 3 days worth of stores...

1250 x 24/36 x 3/5 = 500 tons

Again assume a 5 hour RAS, using 2 rigs at a 25 load per hour rate, that means each load now needs to be just 2 tons to meet the new 500 ton target.

This seems like a massive reduction in operational effectiveness. For so much to be invested in carrier strike only to reduce the capability at the last moment seems bizarre.

How much money is actually going to be saved by doing this?